Hillhater
100 TW
So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .
Hillhater said:...Whilst completely ignoring the huge “carbon loading” initially needed to establish that infrastructure.?
Dont you just love “Committee’s” who have no responsibility to shoulder beyond collecting a fat pay check for producing reports.
PS.. who is going to tell them they dont have a clue what they are talking about ?
Hmm ? Lots of impressive THEORY. there, (Very much like a sound bite from an Al Gore movie ?)jonescg said:From first principles, "............."
Well , no surprises there !Punx0r said:Committees aren't perfect but they have access to data, knowledge and skilled scientists, technologists and economists. As such it's, while I'm sure you'd be first to tell them they don't have a clue I would take the committee's findings over your uneducated opinions any day.
Hillhater said:Hmm ? Lots of impressive THEORY. there, (Very much like a sound bite from an Al Gore movie ?)jonescg said:From first principles, "............."
But what about some actual evidence of the linkage between MAN MADE Co2 , and climate effects.
PS.. storms are no more severe or frequent than history records.
furcifer said:Fun thread.
Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar. You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.
You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.
Ah, you are back to "OK the climate is warming and we're doing it - but it's too late to do anything!"Hillhater said:If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?
Simple.Hillhater said:So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .
So you believe that nuclear power plants are designed to be more fragile and less robust than cell sites.furcifer said:No there isn't, not in a power plant. Especially a nuclear power plant.
TheBeastie said:The other complete joke is the fact Germany gets about 50% of its total MWh renewables generation via Biomass.
as discussed here https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3825#p1465268
Biomass is burning wood to generate electricity, its data triple reinforces the fact that wind/solar is a joke not only on electricity generation, but on the environment as well...
No.. your comprehension lets you down again.billvon said:Ah, you are back to "OK the climate is warming and we're doing it - but it's too late to do anything!"..Hillhater said:If you believe the IPCC CO2 story/lie , then rapidly reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 years are THE critical molecules.
So preloading the next 10-20 years worth of carbon NOW , ....is not the smartest of ideas ?
No flipflop needed.....i have never fallen for the CO2/Greenhouse theory.billvon said:I look forward to your next flipflop. Perhaps deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas again?...
Yet again , your attempts to classify my views , let you down...billvon said:You are like a climate change denier cartoon.
billvon said:You are like a climate change denier cartoon.
A little too simple bill..billvon said:Simple.Hillhater said:So, what exactly do you believe demonstrates the reality of man made Co2, (or natural Co2), is causing climate changes ?..and can be scientificaly validated .
Fill a large chamber with air. Use a radiometer and ........etc
That's . . . a really good question. I am all for talking about climate change, but some people here don't post to discuss - they post to copy their political agenda from their favorite political news source.cricketo said:So what motivates you to keep up at it ?
I didn't claim it replicated it in every way.Hillhater said:A little too simple bill..
A “large chamber”. Does NOT replicate , in so many ways, the atmospheric conditions of a planetary environment.
We have parks in Canada bigger than Sweeden, UK and Switzerland put together. And lakes.Cephalotus said:furcifer said:Fun thread.
Alternatives are great but good luck getting a Boeing 777 off the ground with solar. You need some pretty big sails on a freighter.
You can use biomass an syntehtic fuels for those. Just don't waste the stuff for cars.
You can't tax carbon without shooting your economy in the foot. Even if you could it just makes it cheaper somewhere else.
Like Sweden, UK, Switzerland and other 16 countries that already have taxes on CO2
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/apr/29/climatechange.carbonemissions
Wah? How would a higher IP rating be more fragile?billvon said:So you believe that nuclear power plants are designed to be more fragile and less robust than cell sites.furcifer said:No there isn't, not in a power plant. Especially a nuclear power plant.
I will leave you to your beliefs, then! Good luck with them.
Hillhater said:I m NOT a climate change “denier” . !!
Now, go and have another guess at my position..?
Hillhater said:No flipflop needed.....i have never fallen for the CO2/Greenhouse theory.
Nothing is hermetically sealed. There are just different leak rates. Everything leaks. Heck, even medical implants, made of welded titanium, leak. That's why things have to be designed to work with some amount of moisture. Even nuclear reactors. For proof, I offer that the DC supply (battery backed) worked forfurcifer said:You can't house the switch gear for a power plant in a temporary structure, which is what youre talking about. It's not allowed.
Even on my compressor plant, the switch gear for my backup genset was enclosed in waterproof rated panels. Plus in order to meet the regulations, although it was outdoors, it had to be covered to meet specs.
A drip loop? Thats like the last course of action. If you're supposed to be hermetically sealed you don't need a drip loop.
Things are LESS fragile, and the consequences of screwing up are more dire. The switchgear didn't fail because a drop of water got into it - it failed because hundreds of thousands of gallons of seawater did.That's not because things are more fragile, it's because the consequences of screwing something up are more dire. Im not sure why you would think otherwise.
Yay!furcifer said:We have parks in Canada bigger than Sweeden, UK and Switzerland put together. And lakes.
By taxing the fuel used to generate the energy to do all that.So hows that fair? How do you tax the carbon emissions on the mining, ore and smleting to process the steel they use to make watches Switzerland?
Nope. The UK pays a carbon tax on the fuel they pump into those planes.Is the UK paying a carbon tax on all the planes that land in the UK and generate their economy?
No. It's not released into the atmosphere.Should Canada pay a carbon tax on the trees they cut down for lumber in the UK?
Sure, as long as you don't mind penalties for then cutting them down. However, it would be simpler to just tax fossil fuels and ignore lumber, since in the mid term (a decade or so) it's net zero.Or do we get the credit for growing them?
furcifer said:...
So hows that fair? How do you tax the carbon emissions on the mining, ore and smleting to process the steel they use to make watches Switzerland?
Is the UK paying a carbon tax on all the planes that land in the UK and generate their economy?
Should Canada pay a carbon tax on the trees they cut down for lumber in the UK? Or do we get the credit for growing them? Arent the associated emssions completely dependent in the end user? How do you pay the fair amount of tax if you need to track how the tree was grown, how long it lived, hownit was processed, transported, delivered and even used.
It's just another ineffective tax that kills economies and doesnt do anything besides create bureaucracy...
furcifer said:Fukishima II followed proper guidelines and didn't meltdown.